Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description usefully adds the output shape (GeoJSON features) and the underlying endpoint, but says nothing about rate limits, error/no-match behavior, or result ordering/bias semantics.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and reinforced by examples. The trailing 'API: GET /geocoding/{query}.json' is somewhat redundant with the schema's note that query goes in the URL path, but it is compact and harmless.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an 11-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the key missing piece (results are GeoJSON features), and the schema fully documents the many filters. It stops short of covering result ordering or no-match behavior, which a geocoder consumer might need.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all 11 parameters are already documented in the schema (bbox, types, excludeTypes inversion, proximity, worldview, etc.). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond noting the query goes in the URL path, which the schema also states. Baseline 3 is correct.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (search/geocode) and resource (place, address, POI by name) and gives concrete query examples plus the return format (GeoJSON features). It implies forward-vs-reverse distinction through 'by name' but never names reverse_geocode or batch_geocode as the alternatives, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied: use this to turn a name/address into coordinates. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer maptiler_reverse_geocode, maptiler_batch_geocode, or maptiler_geolocate_ip, and no mention of autocomplete-vs-full-search selection despite an autocomplete parameter.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.